340:
edits: 99.23% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 231.73 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major article edits: 99.23% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 17 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.2% (10) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.92% (96) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 92.72% (4636) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 88.26% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 10 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 4459 | Average edits per page: 1.12 | Edits on top: 17.54% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 12.68% (634 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 81.74% (4087 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 4.72% (236 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.44% (22 edit(s)) Edits by
Knowledge namespace: Article: 100% (5000) | Article talk: 0% (0) User: 0% (0) | User talk: 0% (0) Knowledge: 0% (0) | Knowledge talk: 0% (0) Image: 0% (0) Template: 0% (0) Category: 0% (0) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0% (0)
347:
edits: 100% Minor edits: 99.5% Average edits per day: 1.62 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 99.5% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 17 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 1.96% (98) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 4.16% (208) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 92.52% (4626) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 89.65% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 4713 | Average edits per page: 1.06 | Edits on top: 6.8% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 15.06% (753 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 83.26% (4163 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 1.24% (62 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.12% (6 edit(s)) Edits by
Knowledge namespace: Article: 100% (5000) | Article talk: 0% (0) User: 0% (0) | User talk: 0% (0) Knowledge: 0% (0) | Knowledge talk: 0% (0) Image: 0% (0) Template: 0% (0) Category: 0% (0) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0% (0)
1455:
All Soo had to do was say, "don't worry its just an in-joke" when I asked and I'd have thought no more of it. Instead I spent a fair amount of time which I could have spent editing or making diagrams researching those comments. Overall the oppose is for the unhelpful "why should I tell you" attitude and the fact it cost me some fair amount of my time. Especially as it turned out the ‘in-joke’ was actually made at my expense, something I object to. Its not a strong oppose but I feel this user may still stand to benefit from some more time as an editor. Soo’s a very proficient editor and generally good with the ins and out of
Wikipeida which is very commendable, but I felt this constituted an underlying negative attitude towards other editors just trying to be helpful. Sorry Soo if I've taken it the wrong way and I do hope you know I was just trying to be helpful, its really nothing personal but that’s where I stand on it at the moment. --
113:) and find time to contribute to AfD whenever possible (albeit less so recently). I have recently begun using VandalProof and was surprised at how many edits are actually legitimate (Knowledge naysayers be gone!). I believe I am familiar with Knowledge policies, and take a special interest in keeping Knowledge as free as possible, particular with regard to images. Hopefully I can now be trusted with the special privileges of adminship. (PS This is my second nomination, my
661:, many good reasons to support. Nothing questionable in the last 8 months. While it would be nice to see more user talk edits, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Many people rack up user talk edits chatting, which Soo does not. Soo does good work, has plenty of experience and always uses edit summaries. While this isn't direct communication, admins are responsible to the community at large to show transparency in what they do. Soo has done this.—
294:) who inevitably became involved in the dispute too, and DreamGuy accused me of using him as a sockpuppet. I invited anyone to perform an IP check or otherwise investigate the situation properly, but instead the accusations continued by innuendo and suggestion. In the end I realised that there was no point continuing the argument. As a post-script, I notice that DreamGuy was concluded "likely" to be using a sockpuppet himself in this
285:) but it remained fairly civil. I couldn't make much progress with the article, so I added it to my watchlist and forgot about it. Some time later, an anonymous editor jumped in and made some fairly aggressive changes to the article. I felt that this heavily redacted version was better, since I think an accurate but incomplete article is better than a long and disputable one. By some process I can't really remember,
719:: Agentsoo has been here long enough to know what he is doing, I think he has shown he can be trusted. The "twat" thing doesn't bother me - exactly the same thing goes on at IRC, it is just that comments there are not so permanent. It is none of my business how Soo interacts with his mates, he certainly doesn't appear to abuse those he doesn't know and that is what is important here.
1601:, and a tough call. I'm quite impressed by this user's contributions, and singularly unimpressed with the seeming inability to communicate. As an admin, you will be called upon to be a communicator and a mediator ("mediation" is formal; mediating is daily), so I expect I'd support with the knowledge that this candidate can step in and referee.
170:
I'm about to start work on the
Featured Article Review, but I'd be particularly interested in using admin powers to handle issues with supposed fair use images and other copyright issues. I'm not a copyright fanatic but I think I understand the issues involved fairly well so it makes sense for me to
1568:: Seems an experienced, good editor. However, I am rather troubled by his use in response to the third question of the phrase "a charge on which he was later found guilty himself". To me, this indicayes a user who is prone to wikilawyering, in particular treating our processes as courts of law. --
1454:
To clarify at the behest of JoshuaZ. I felt that his responses to me personally and the general language used was unnecessary and unhelpful. An attitude that wouldn't serve him well as an administrator. I didn't realise until several days after initially reading the comments that it was an in-joke.
339:
Viewing contribution data for user
Agentsoo (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 310 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 07, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 10hr (UTC) -- 1, September, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major
1470:
while calling him a twat, which was intended as a joke and Jono interpreted as one, replying in kind. Next thing, WikipedianProlific was asking me to explain myself, when as far as I knew he wasn't involved at all. It turns out that Jono's original odd message was actually a repost of a message to
604:
I also note that
Agentsoo's contributions as an anon we're very good. The total number of edits is astounding. I'm going to run through my standard logic: 1) Do we think that Agentsoo will deliberately abuse the mop? No. 2) Do we think he will do something incompetent and highly damaging with the
346:
Viewing contribution data for user
Agentsoo (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 340 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 1hr (UTC) -- 07, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 1, August, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major
1471:
him from
WikipedianProlific, but at the time I didn't put two and two together. So just to clarify, it wasn't a joke at your expense, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted your intervention. I now understand your curiosity! Apologies for the misunderstanding, it's a limitation of the medium I suppose.
191:
to
Featured status is probably my proudest moment. The article was in a bad way when I started working on it, was comprehensively rewritten (with valued contributions from other editors) and then put forward for Featured-ness. The FAC debate was an arduous 31 days, but the article emerged much
212:
I have been involved in only one major dispute, nearly a year ago. I disagreed with another editor over two versions of a page, and he accused me of vandalism and sock-puppetry (a charge on which he was later found guilty himself.) It was resolved, largely, by
Mediation. I found the detailed
539:, I see no problems (as of yet), answers seem OK and I think we need more admins that deal with images/media problems, huge backlogs me thinks?. Couldn't see any major problems under oppose. Users talk edits are a bit low because of no vandal fighting, users talk page shows activity.--
289:
became involved in the dispute over the two versions, and we got into a revert war, which lasted about 10 reverts over a few days. I now regret that, but at the time I was inflamed by DreamGuy accusing me of 'vandalising' the article. At the time, I was 'training up' a new editor
366:
Username Agentsoo Total edits 13560 Distinct pages edited 11695 Average edits/page 1.159 First edit 20:22, June 18, 2004 (main) 11932 Talk 301 User 117 User talk 145 Image 44 Template 33 Template talk 12 Category 212 Category talk 5 Knowledge 681 Knowledge talk 71
1022:...I'm not sure article talkpage stats are all that important. Very frequently issues about articles are handled on user talk pages, the village pump, project pages, and peer reviews, etc. so I won't hold these lack of edits against them.
573:. More than ample edit count and time with project. Uses VandalProof and takes part in AfD's. The remaining question in my mind is civility. I believe the heated exchange that resulted in mediation is far enough in the past.
298:. So I admit that I probably didn't handle this as well as I could have done, but I think I learnt from the experience and hopefully my conduct in my various FAC debates indicates that I can be civil in disagreement.
1419:
WikipedianProlific was quizzing me about an in-joke between me and my friend JonONeill that didn't involve him at all. I don't see why I should have to explain it to him, or what it's got to do with being an admin.
213:
criticism of the FAC process quite stressful, but managed to remain civil and focussed my attention on improving the articles in question. Hopefully that will stand me in good stead for the stresses of adminship.
1225:
large body of edits, the oppose votes don't convince me, and I don't think that the user would abuse administrator privledges. However, you definately need to make more contact with other users in their talk
1431:
Thanks for the explanation. That's what it felt like to me-- a joke between friends and not an incivil exchange of insults. (I have two co-workers that go at eac other the same way.) Happy to support Cheers.
781:
I see nothing wrong, also, the joke is fine and I don't have an issue with that. Sometimes things don't read off the way they sound, but I think we all do things like that. It's perfectly excusable.
1466:
Okay, I think I can unpick what happened here. My friend Jono sent me an odd message, so I assumed it was a parody of the usual warnings that vandals get round here. I replied, referring him to
281:, and I marked it with the NPOV tag, which I now realise was the wrong template (I really meant 'tone', but I didn't know it existed at the time.) I had some dispute with the article's editor (
1387:(the link he posted first goes between these two, and you get the whole picture. Although I'm pretty sure this isn't something that was meant to be serious or that was taken seriously. -
89:) – I have been a chronic user of Knowledge since May 2005, accumulating over 12,000 edits (if that counts for anything). I have been the major contributor to two featured articles (
206:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
98:
106:
617:
I'm not really fond of the "twat" comment, but unless I see that that kind of thing happens often, I'm sticking with this support. AgentSoo will benefit us greatly. --
1635:
1010:, don't think he will abuse or misuse the tools. But how can people vote "per nom" on a self-nom? Do you believe someone makes a good admin because he says he will? -
605:
mop? No. 3) Do we think that the project will benefit from Agentsoo having the Mop? Obviously yes. I therefore I have trouble seeing how someone could not support.
145:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
295:
236:
In your previous RfA you mentioned that you had done work as an anon before getting an account and that as an anon you had written articles including starting
379:
Soo is a very dedicated editor. She works very well with others, and she's knowledgable on many aspects of Knowledge. I have worked with Soo regularly on
1653:
58:
383:, and she's great to work with. If I'd have known she was interested in adminship, I would have nominated her myself. Great user. Give her a mop! :)--
114:
110:
161:
1159:
1324:. Especially with so many mainspace edits, the nom should be communicating more with his fellow wikipedians. I will likely support on re-app.
305:
Could you explain what Francis-Tyers oppose vote below is about and please explain your version of events, with relevant difs if possible?
192:
improved. That said, I recognise that it's probably not the most significant article in an encyclopaedia, and recently I've been working on
257:
The IP is 213.122.72.220. There are less than savory edits by other anoons, and I want to spare others the confusion I experienced. Cheers.
707:. No recent issues, and I don't really care about talk edit counts. Been here long enough that I seriously doubt he'll abuse the tools.
442:
A great, experienced editor. I might like a bit more interaction on talk/user talk/Wikipedia talk pages, but she(?) deserves the mop. —
967:
1035:
748:. Looks like a good editor that has worked hard and knows WP. WP would benefit if they got the mop. No reasons to oppose IMHO.
840:
40:
17:
1614:
995:
none of the objections to this adminship are very convincing for me; I see no evidence that this user would abuse the m&b.
380:
102:
695:
as my criteria met and this is supposed to be no big deal. 12,000 edits and no incivility issues? I see no reason to oppose.
86:
1396:
Hmm, I'm puzzled as to how that could merit an oppose vote. I will ask WikipedianProlific to explain this in more detail.
1168:
757:
1516:
1459:
1366:
684:
588:
The two taken together look like an exchange between friends or at least acquaintances. If so, I've seen worse. I am
356:
153:
1250:
480:
181:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1373:
None of the difs in that section are Agentsoo's. Could you point more explicitly to what you are talking about?
1154:
1072:
157:
1549:
because of insufficient communication with others (talk pages), which I find crucial for an administrator. --
1456:
1432:
1411:
1363:
965:
593:
582:
574:
270:
In regard to question 3 above, could you give more detail about the incident with the sockpuppeting editor?
258:
1525:
945:
937:
908:
666:
489:
322:
23:
769:- he is a very dedicated user and the civility problems cited by the opposers seem to be reasonably mild
1581:
1190:
188:
94:
1634:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1620:
1593:
1584:
1572:
1553:
1541:
1528:
1520:
1497:
1475:
1461:
1449:
1435:
1424:
1414:
1400:
1391:
1377:
1368:
1359:
for the above reasons, and also because of a generally bad attitude unbefitting #an administrator. See
1351:
1337:
1328:
1308:
1296:
1281:
1255:
1230:
1217:
1205:
1193:
1172:
1145:
1133:
1116:
1093:
1075:
1059:
1051:
1039:
1014:
1002:
987:
969:
958:
949:
940:
927:
915:
888:
876:
859:
845:
804:
792:
773:
761:
740:
723:
711:
699:
687:
669:
653:
631:
609:
596:
565:
545:
531:
510:
493:
468:
456:
428:
419:
404:
389:
334:
261:
134:
121:
1512:
1239:
902:
836:
558:
409:
Comment: Good god, I've been referring to him as a woman for the last six months! Why didn't anyone
171:
deal with that area. I'm also happy to help out on AfD if required, and am generally quite flexible.
1610:
1444:
1321:
1244:
1162:
1068:
824:
649:
520:
505:
770:
562:
554:
529:
80:
476:
Who cares if they interact with the community? I think this user would make an excellent admin.
69:
1569:
1271:
1227:
1088:
1031:
1027:
897:
787:
753:
662:
644:
541:
485:
477:
451:
401:
278:
1577:
1348:
1214:
1111:
736:
681:
619:
397:: Soo is not female.. I suspect he's going to get a good laugh when he reads this, however.
240:. Could you give us a list of the main articles that you started/contributed to as an anon?
1440:
Just to confirm that... yeah, an innocent joke. Certainly not grounds for a negative vote.
1538:
1507:
1325:
1305:
1278:
1048:
868:
832:
1531:
Impressive edit count but needs to engage in communication before considering adminship.
1606:
1590:
1441:
1127:
818:
641:
502:
291:
1647:
1550:
1472:
1467:
1421:
1334:
1291:
1181:
1056:
996:
855:
589:
525:
425:
414:
384:
352:
286:
131:
118:
76:
800:. Good editor, who I'm sure will be a useful admin. Civility concerns are minor. --
1494:
1397:
1374:
1083:
1023:
810:
782:
749:
606:
444:
398:
237:
226:
90:
896:. Looks like a dedicated and thoughtful editor. I don't agree that his actions on
731:, we always need more admins who can deal with fair use abuse with a heavy fist.
1142:
1102:
885:
801:
732:
708:
696:
678:
465:
282:
193:
152:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1628:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1505:
per recent diffs above, mostly disregarding the Skull situation as too old. -
1388:
1302:
1275:
1011:
1202:
1122:
978:
900:
were out of line to the point of opposing adminship several months later. --
677:
Lots of good work, opposes don't show anything that bad any time recently. -
1067:
from what I have seen I believe he would make a dependable administrator.
1101:- has done good work on important projects, no basis to fear tool-abuse.
924:
720:
117:
was over a year ago so hopefully I've resolved the objections raised.)
1638:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
586:
has left a note referring to this comment on JonONeil's talk page.
1047:
per nom. Looks like Agentsoo2 would make a fine administrator. -
1589:
Per concerns on both sides. Seems to be a good editor though.
230:
As always, all additional questions are completely optional.
128:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
196:, which I hope to bring to a similar standard eventually.
36:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1385:
1383:
1360:
1287:
585:
578:
248:
935:
Support! However, hoping to see more talk edits. --
424:Comment: You're right, I did get a good laugh :)
1410:, BOBET, for finding the missing piece. Cheers
1189:- no reason not to trust him with admin tools.
1537:: not quite ready yet. May support in future.
8:
592:for now and awaiting clarification. Cheers,
277:I was unhappy with the state of the article
24:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Agentsoo2
518:A very dedicated user to this project. --
312:He was the mediator in the above dispute.
320:edits (seperated due to heavy AWB use).
101:). I also work on several WikiProjects (
1333:I guess I'm just not very sociable...
251:gives a fairly representative sample.
7:
1288:this incident from eight months ago
639:, a very solid user all around. —
247:I can't remember all of them, but
31:
1654:Successful requests for adminship
1493:per FrancisTyers and Themindset.
1274:do not befit an administrator. -
1382:I'm pretty sure he means these:
1320:. Less than 200 user talk edits
820:(raises champagne glass happily)
577:'s oppose appears to be related
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
381:Knowledge:WikiProject Dinosaurs
579:this entry on Soo's talk page,
1:
162:administrators' reading list
1621:02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1594:09:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1554:13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1542:18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1529:22:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1521:02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1256:21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1231:19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1218:19:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1206:13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1194:04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1173:19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1146:00:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1134:18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1117:18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1094:13:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
816:Excellent Support, Darling!
501:per nom - Soo is the best.
355:'s edit summary usage with
141:Questions for the candidate
1670:
1585:18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1573:18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1498:23:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1476:08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1462:00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1450:23:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1436:20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1425:17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1415:15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1401:14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1392:14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1378:13:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1369:12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1352:06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1338:10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1329:05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1309:00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1297:00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1282:00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1076:23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1060:23:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1052:21:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1040:16:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1015:16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1003:03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
988:00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
970:23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
950:22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
928:21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
916:17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
889:15:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
877:14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
860:05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
846:03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
805:03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
793:23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
774:23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
762:22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
741:22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
724:22:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
712:22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
700:21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
688:20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
670:19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
654:18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
632:18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
610:18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
597:14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
566:10:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
546:10:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
532:09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
511:08:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
494:07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
469:01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
457:00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
429:10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
420:07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
405:04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
390:00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
335:02:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
262:13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
225:Additional questions from
156:, and read the page about
154:Category:Knowledge backlog
135:23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
122:23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
977:- valuable contributor -
343:Next 5000 article edits:
1631:Please do not modify it.
1270:The editor's actions on
583:User:WikipedianProlific
575:User:WikipedianProlific
97:) and a featured list (
46:Please do not modify it
1293:Firsfron of Ronchester
1286:Are you talking about
416:Firsfron of Ronchester
386:Firsfron of Ronchester
1141:will be good admin --
933:OMG SOMEONE WITH 2FA!
490:(The people rejoice!)
189:Countdown (game show)
41:request for adminship
1290:? Just asking. :) --
1238:per Jersey Devil. -→
1457:WikipedianProlific
1364:WikipedianProlific
923:Looks okay to me.
1618:
1519:
1447:
1322:fails my criteria
1272:Skull (symbolism)
1213:Very impressed.--
898:Skull (symbolism)
884:- per nom 2.0 --
844:
760:
630:
508:
492:
448:
279:Skull (symbolism)
22:(Redirected from
1661:
1633:
1604:
1511:
1445:
1294:
1253:
1247:
1242:
1191:Metamagician3000
1130:
1125:
1109:
1091:
1086:
999:
984:
963:
943:
914:
911:
905:
874:
871:
858:
830:
827:
790:
785:
752:
647:
628:
625:
622:
544:
528:
523:
506:
488:
483:
455:
446:
417:
387:
331:
328:
325:
48:
27:
1669:
1668:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1636:this nomination
1629:
1433::) Dlohcierekim
1412::) Dlohcierekim
1292:
1251:
1245:
1241:Buchanan-Hermit
1240:
1171:
1128:
1123:
1103:
1089:
1084:
997:
980:
959:
941:
909:
903:
901:
872:
869:
854:
825:
788:
783:
645:
623:
620:
594::) Dlohcierekim
540:
521:
519:
481:
474:Strong Support.
443:
415:
385:
368:
348:
341:
329:
326:
323:
259::) Dlohcierekim
62:
44:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1667:
1665:
1657:
1656:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1640:
1624:
1623:
1619:
1596:
1587:
1575:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1544:
1532:
1523:
1500:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1354:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1233:
1220:
1208:
1196:
1184:
1175:
1167:
1148:
1136:
1119:
1096:
1078:
1062:
1054:
1042:
1017:
1005:
990:
972:
961:Baseball,Baby!
952:
930:
918:
891:
879:
862:
848:
807:
795:
776:
764:
746:Strong Support
743:
726:
714:
702:
690:
672:
656:
634:
612:
599:
571:Strong support
568:
548:
534:
513:
496:
471:
459:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
377:STRONG SUPPORT
373:
372:
365:
364:
363:
360:
357:mathbot's tool
345:
338:
314:
313:
300:
299:
296:checkuser case
292:User:JonONeill
265:
264:
252:
222:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
200:
199:
198:
197:
175:
174:
173:
172:
158:administrators
143:
142:
138:
137:
65:Final (48/9/4)
61:
56:
54:
52:
51:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1666:
1655:
1652:
1651:
1649:
1639:
1637:
1632:
1626:
1625:
1622:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1602:
1600:
1597:
1595:
1592:
1588:
1586:
1583:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1558:
1555:
1552:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1530:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1509:
1504:
1501:
1499:
1496:
1492:
1489:
1477:
1474:
1469:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1367:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1295:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1248:
1243:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1229:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1197:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1137:
1135:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1108:
1107:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1001:
994:
991:
989:
986:
983:
976:
973:
971:
968:
966:
964:
962:
956:
953:
951:
948:
947:
944:
939:
934:
931:
929:
926:
922:
919:
917:
912:
906:
899:
895:
892:
890:
887:
883:
880:
878:
875:
866:
863:
861:
857:
852:
849:
847:
842:
838:
834:
829:
822:
821:
817:
813:
812:
808:
806:
803:
799:
796:
794:
791:
786:
780:
777:
775:
772:
768:
765:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
744:
742:
738:
734:
730:
727:
725:
722:
718:
715:
713:
710:
706:
703:
701:
698:
694:
691:
689:
686:
683:
680:
676:
673:
671:
668:
664:
660:
657:
655:
652:
651:
648:
643:
638:
635:
633:
627:
626:
616:
613:
611:
608:
603:
600:
598:
595:
591:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
569:
567:
564:
561:
560:
556:
552:
549:
547:
543:
538:
535:
533:
530:
527:
524:
517:
514:
512:
509:
504:
500:
497:
495:
491:
487:
484:
479:
475:
472:
470:
467:
463:
460:
458:
453:
449:
441:
438:
430:
427:
423:
422:
421:
418:
412:
408:
407:
406:
403:
400:
396:
393:
392:
391:
388:
382:
378:
375:
374:
370:
369:
361:
358:
354:
350:
349:
344:
337:
336:
333:
332:
319:
311:
308:
307:
306:
304:
297:
293:
288:
287:User:DreamGuy
284:
280:
276:
273:
272:
271:
269:
263:
260:
256:
253:
250:
246:
243:
242:
241:
239:
235:
231:
229:
228:
219:
218:
211:
208:
207:
205:
202:
201:
195:
190:
186:
183:
182:
180:
177:
176:
169:
166:
165:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
147:
146:
140:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
85:
82:
78:
74:
73:
71:
68:Ended 02:20,
66:
60:
57:
55:
50:
47:
42:
39:
34:
33:
25:
19:
1630:
1627:
1598:
1570:David Mestel
1565:
1546:
1534:
1526:Tony Sidaway
1508:CrazyRussian
1506:
1502:
1490:
1407:
1356:
1347:Per above --
1344:
1317:
1303:FrancisTyers
1301:See talk. -
1276:FrancisTyers
1267:
1235:
1228:Jersey Devil
1222:
1210:
1198:
1186:
1177:
1158:
1157:
1150:
1138:
1121:
1112:
1105:
1104:
1098:
1080:
1064:
1044:
1019:
1007:
992:
981:
974:
960:
954:
936:
932:
920:
893:
881:
864:
853:per above. —
850:
819:
815:
809:
797:
778:
766:
745:
728:
716:
704:
692:
674:
663:WAvegetarian
658:
640:
636:
618:
614:
601:
570:
557:
550:
536:
515:
498:
473:
461:
439:
410:
394:
376:
342:
321:
317:
315:
309:
302:
301:
274:
267:
266:
254:
244:
238:Chasmosaurus
233:
232:
224:
223:
209:
203:
184:
178:
167:
149:
144:
127:
83:
75:
67:
64:
63:
53:
45:
37:
35:
1578:Merovingian
1503:Weak Oppose
1349:Masssiveego
1215:Holdenhurst
1024:The ikiroid
537:<-Seven!
362:Edit count:
283:User:Wetman
194:Mathematics
1539:Thumbelina
1326:Themindset
1049:Bootstoots
904:Aguerriero
867:per nom.--
629:(joturner)
555:Mailer Dia
413:me!? :/ --
316:Last 5000
130:I accept.
70:2006-08-14
38:successful
1603:RadioKirk
1591:Attic Owl
1201:per nom.
1036:Advise me
957:per nom.
771:abakharev
464:per nom.
115:first one
1648:Category
1551:dcabrilo
1226:pages.--
1182:Jeffklib
1169:(samtal)
1160:hurikein
1155:íslenska
1085:=Nichalp
921:Support.
865:Support.
856:Khoikhoi
841:contribs
837:messages
367:Portal 7
353:Agentsoo
220:Comments
187:Getting
160:and the
87:contribs
77:Agentsoo
59:Agentsoo
1599:Neutral
1566:Neutral
1560:Neutral
1495:Singopo
1398:JoshuaZ
1375:JoshuaZ
1236:Support
1223:Support
1211:Support
1199:Support
1187:Support
1178:Support
1151:Support
1139:Support
1099:Support
1090:«Talk»=
1081:Support
1065:Support
1045:Support
1020:Support
1008:Support
1000:iggurat
993:Support
975:Support
955:Support
894:Support
882:Support
851:Support
798:Support
779:Support
767:Support
750:Nephron
729:Support
717:Support
705:Support
693:Support
675:Support
659:Support
642:Deckill
637:Support
615:Support
607:JoshuaZ
602:Support
551:Support
526:iva1979
516:Support
499:Support
466:Michael
462:Support
440:Support
395:Comment
371:Support
318:article
255:Comment
227:JoshuaZ
1547:Oppose
1535:Oppose
1491:Oppose
1468:WP:NPA
1446:(talk)
1408:Thanks
1357:Oppose
1345:Oppose
1318:Oppose
1268:Oppose
1262:Oppose
1143:rogerd
1106:bd2412
938:Миборо
886:Tawker
870:Kungfu
823:--Slgr
811:Bianca
802:Avenue
733:Stifle
709:BryanG
697:Ifnord
679:Goldom
667:(talk)
624:abjotu
590:WP:AGF
581:where
507:(talk)
486:rbil10
1517:email
1389:Bobet
1057:Steel
1012:Bobet
828:ndson
621:tariq
542:Andeh
478:RyanG
324:Voice
72:(UTC)
16:<
1582:Talk
1513:talk
1442:Jono
1203:Icey
1073:talk
1032:desk
1028:talk
946:ский
910:talk
873:Adam
833:page
784:Yank
737:talk
553:. -
503:Jono
452:talk
445:Mets
411:tell
399:Bobo
351:See
327:-of-
249:this
111:this
109:and
107:this
103:this
99:this
95:this
93:and
91:this
81:talk
1473:Soo
1422:Soo
1335:Soo
1163:#12
1129:ert
1124:Rob
1069:Doc
925:Deb
789:sox
721:Rje
682:‽‽‽
447:501
426:Soo
330:All
132:Soo
119:Soo
1650::
1580:-
1362:--
1252:?!
1180:.
1153:.
1071:♬
1038:)
979:Gl
839:-
835:-
814::
739:)
563:lo
310:A:
275:A:
245:A:
210:A:
204:3.
185:A:
179:2.
168:A:
164:.
150:1.
105:,
43:.
1617:)
1615:c
1613:|
1611:t
1609:|
1607:u
1605:(
1515:/
1306:·
1279:·
1249:/
1246:™
1113:T
1034:·
1030:·
1026:(
998:Z
985:n
982:e
942:в
913:)
907:(
843:)
831:(
826:@
758:C
756:|
754:T
735:(
685:⁂
665:•
650:r
646:e
559:b
522:S
482:e
454:)
450:(
402:.
359:.
303:3
290:(
268:2
234:1
84:·
79:(
49:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.